This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.

Wednesday, December 07, 2016

Trump and hopes for the right to life

People who had pro-life motives for supporting Trump are putting the hopes for fetal lives in the hands of someone who thinks that pregnancy is "an inconvenience for a person running a business." If woman thinks her boss might say "you're fired" if he finds out she's pregnant, where do you think she is likely to go?

10 comments:

Hillary believes that partial-birth abortion - which even the most strident pro-abortionist can't demonstrate logically is anything except the intentional violent killing of a baby - should be completely legal. It's no wonder that pro-life people would rather take a chance on Trump, since it's highly unlikely he would be as hideous as Hillary. On that issue, anyway.

VR's post seems to be questioning why pro-life people motivated by their stance on abortion would vote for Trump. My answer is to that. Can't believe a word Trump says, but I fully understand why they chose him over her.

@Dr. Reppert and his like-minded leftists:It's a basic moral choice, and would be immature to not recognize the fact that one cannot always choose between two preferable options. Trump does not deserve the presidency, but Hillary hardly deserves citizenship. The choice is between the lesser of two evils. I don't mean to be rude, but I suppose I am allowed to be just as confrontational as you have been:

Why do I feel like I always have to state the obvious when talking with liberals? Are you people even open to persuasion? Do you see anything except what you want to? Have you even considered the reasons one may chose to vote for Trump on the issue of abortion in preference over Hillary? Besides being PC and pedantic, this is one of the main reasons I can't take many liberals seriously. I don't mean to include you on that, Dr. Reppert. I'll be there when you finally push back from liberalism.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________As for the success of Trump, I again feel I am stating the obvious: Trump will be a great president. Without question, he will outdo President Barack Obama. And I get the feeling, at least, that Dr. Reppert thinks he was a success.

Trump is too prideful to let this chance go to waste. That is, he's obsessed with competition. He will do everything he can to come off as the radical "below budget and ahead of schedule" kind of businessman he inherently is. He listens to his advisors, he is a disciplined man, he has a strong will, he is experienced, he is prudent, he is determined, and he has a keen initiative.

The truth is, Trump is on our side, and Hillary was on her own. The time to complain about Trump and actively oppose a Trump-election for presidency was, well, before the Trump-election for presidency. Disagree with him on policy all you want, but don't forget that we are called to pray for our leaders. His success is our success now.

Why do people assume that the only way to help fetuses survive is to restrict choice? The abortion rate went down in the mid-90s thanks to the Clinton Family and Medical Leave Act. Here is someone who says that pregnancy is bad for business and doesn't want to help pregnant women stay in the workplace. It's bosses like that that push women into the abortion clinics who wouldn't go there otherwise. Paid family leave will save a lot more fetuses than overturning Roe. Improved access to pre-natal care for poor women will keep more women out of the abortion clinics than overturning Roe. The cut-throat capitalist environment, on the other hand, is profoundly anti-natal.

"Why do people assume that the only way to help fetuses survive is to restrict choice?"

They do not have to believe the implausible, that it is the *only* way, to believe the plausible, nay necessary, that it is *one* way.

"Paid family leave will save a lot more fetuses than overturning Roe. Improved access to pre-natal care for poor women will keep more women out of the abortion clinics than overturning Roe."

And you know that how? Even if that were true, what exactly is the relevance of that to overturn Roe vs. Wade as a license to kill, and therefore morally objectionable? Overturning Roe vs. Wade is consistent to having paid family leave.

But here the choice is between two candidates, one who supports choice restrictions, but also has supported workplace practices that punish women for remaining pregnant while working and carrying their preganancies to term. You have another candidate who opposes choice restrictions but has strongly supported efforts that keep women from being punished in the workplace for carrying their pregnancies to term. If you don't want to see abortions taking place, which of these candidates do you vote for? I would argue that, in a case like this, it is actually more pro-life to vote pro-choice. Choice is awfully hard to restrict given the fact that it is underwritten by a Supreme Court decision of almost 44 years standing. You either have to change the Court and get it overturned (which three pro-life presidents tried to do and failed), and even there all you do is throw it back to the states. Are the states going to end up with laws restricting or eliminating abortion? I have serious doubts about that. Or, do we work on creating legislation that supports women who want to carry their pregnancies to term but might be pressured by economic fears into aborting?

I think the latter approach, combined with a strong emphasis on the fact that there the legal possibility of choice does NOT entail moral acceptability, is the best approach to take if you want to see as few abortions as possible. Oh, and you can pray to end abortion.

Followers

About Me

I am the author of C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason, published by Inter-Varsity Press. I received a Ph.D in philosophy from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in 1989.